1. The defendant shall make each entry to the plaintiffs in the "Allowance for Leave, etc." column in attached Form 1 for each of the plaintiffs and each of them.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion 1) Plaintiffs (Plaintiff 1-12 and net M were dismissed on July 14, 201, and returned to the original state on December 22, 2012, and Plaintiff N,O, and P are the husband and children of the network M, respectively, and Plaintiff 1-12 and network M are the “Plaintiffs” for convenience.

From July 14, 2011 to July 13, 2012, this appears to be a clerical error in June 15, 2012. The annual leave allowance for the work period to July 14, 2012 appears to be a clerical error in June 16, 2012. From June 13, 2013, this appears to be a clerical error in the daily salary period to be as of June 15, 2013 (on June 15, 2013), the annual salary (on June 14, 2013), May 1 to 2015 (on June 16, 2013), May 1 to 2015 (on June 16, 2013), Plaintiff 1 to 3 months’s monthly salary paid (on June 14, 2014) (on June 15, 2014).

Nevertheless, on June 2013, the Defendant unilaterally excluded the unconstitutionality, food, and holiday days from paid holidays without agreement with the labor union or workers, 4 to 3 days in the case of impeachment, 2 to 3 days in the case of believers, and 4 to 3 days in the case of the Gu administration, and 1 days in the case of the Gu administration, and 3 days in the case of the Gu administration, and 3 days in the working day, and then the Defendant treated it as absence without permission, and deducted the Plaintiffs’ ordinary wages on the day, the pertinent weekly holiday allowance, and the relevant monthly holiday allowance (hereinafter collectively referred to as “daily holiday allowance, etc.”).

As such, the Defendant unilaterally provides the Plaintiffs with the working conditions.